Strategies of Engagement: Lessons from the Critical Examination of Collaboration and Conflict in an Interorganizational Domain
Open accessAbstract
Many writers advocate interorganizational collaboration as a solution to a range of organizational and intersectoral problems. Accordingly, they often concentrate on its functional aspects. We argue that collaboration deserves a more critical examination, particularly when the interests of stakeholders conflict and the balance of power between them is unequal. Using examples from a study of the UK refugee system, we argue that collaboration is only one of several possible strategies of engagement used by organizations as they try to manage the interorganizational domain in which they operate. In this paper, we discuss four such strategies: collaboration, compliance, contention and contestation. By examining the stakeholders in the domain and asking who has formal authority, who controls key resources, and who is able to discursively manage legitimacy, researchers are in a stronger position to evaluate both the benefits and costs of these strategies and to differentiate more clearly between strategies that are truly collaborative and strategies that are not. In other words, we hope to demonstrate that collaboration between organizations is not necessarily “good”, conflict is not necessarily “bad”, and surface dynamics are not necessarily an accurate representation of what is going on beneath.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Two separate articles sharing a coauthor define collaboration by evoking behaviors and outcomes.
“two separate articles that share a coauthor define collaboration by evoking behaviors (Hardy & Phillips, 1998; see also Hardy et al., 2003) and outcomes (Hardy et al., 2005).”
From Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Establishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms Through a Systematic Literature Review (2020) · cites this paper as Hardy & Phillips, 1998
Cites
Social Problems as Collective Behavior
Blumer, H. (1971) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/799797 · Cited by 1,281 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As Blumer (1971) has pointed out, social problems do not exist in any objective sense — they are “named” as a result of the collective, discursive practices that create meaning for them.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Castañer, X., & Oliveira, N. (2020) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206320901565 · Cited by 525 · see citing works
McNamara, M. (2012) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2012.655527 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hardy, C., & Phillips, N.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 1998-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 217-230
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2001263112
- Cited by
- 614
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 89 · 2012: 31
- FWCI
- 22.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Organization Science (publishedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
- Keywords
- inter-organizational collaboration, stakeholder conflict, balance of power, compliance, contention, contestation, legitimacy, formal authority, resource control, intersectoral collaboration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review